https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436668 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the addition of Rs. 9,98,815 as unexplained gold jewelry under section 69A lacked merit. The court found the demands on the assessee regarding unrelated bank transactions unjustified, emphasizing M/s Arjun Traders' regular compliance evidenced by detailed documentation. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, concluding that the assessee should not be held accountable for M/s Arjun Traders' transactions. The judgment was pronounced on 17.04.2023 by the ITAT Delhi. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 08:41:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436668 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the addition of Rs. 9,98,815 as unexplained gold jewelry under section 69A lacked merit. The court found the demands on the assessee regarding unrelated bank transactions unjustified, emphasizing M/s Arjun Traders' regular compliance evidenced by detailed documentation. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, concluding that the assessee should not be held accountable for M/s Arjun Traders' transactions. The judgment was pronounced on 17.04.2023 by the ITAT Delhi. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436668